Board of Inquiry's Walter Sofronoff was in 'constant contact' with Janet Albrechtsen, barrister claims

Information obtained by lawyers during Shane Drumgold SC’s legal fight against the Board of Inquiry apparently shows the inquiry’s chair called journalists from one news outlet 55 times and spent seven-and-a-half hours on the phone with them.

This information showed Walter Sofronoff KC was in “constant contact” with Janet Albrechtsen from The Australian in particular, Mr Drumgold’s barrister Dan O’Gorman SC claimed in the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday (31 January).

The former ACT Director of Public Prosecutions wants either Mr Sofronoff’s report, which was released after the inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann, or the decisions it made in respect to him, to be declared invalid or unlawful.

The matter was in court on Wednesday for another legal argument before the formal hearings begin next month.

Mr O’Gorman said an analysis of the communications Mr Sofronoff had with Ms Albrechtsen and other journalists showed he had made 65 phone calls between 9 February and 31 July 2023.

Of these, 55 were made to journalists from The Australian while 10 were made to other journalists.

The barrister also said Mr Sofronoff spent seven hours and 33 minutes on the phone with journalists from The Australian, while one hour and 24 minutes was spent with others.

Mr O’Gorman said during the BOI’s public hearings, which ran between May and June 2023, Mr Sofronoff made 10 calls to The Australian, eight of which were to Ms Albrechtsen.

This information was presented to the court during an argument around documents that Mr Drumgold claimed went to an alleged apprehension of bias against him.

“We say that the apprehension of bias arises in this way: that in the months leading up to and during the inquiry, Ms Albrechtsen was writing numerous articles that were critical of Mr Drumgold,” Mr O’Gorman claimed.

“Mr Sofronoff was then appointed and there are numerous communications between Mr Sofronoff and Ms Albrechtsen in particular.

“This is in the context of Ms Albrechtsen having, over a number of months, exhibited an attitude adverse to Mr Drumgold.”

He said the material in question showed the texts, emails and phone calls had been “taking place without Mr Drumgold being aware of these communications with Ms Albrechtsen”.

Mr Sofronoff was in “constant contact” with Ms Albrechtsen from about 22 February and throughout the remainder of the time he was performing his role, Mr O’Gorman claimed, and she had received “confidential information” related to the inquiry.

Also, Mr O’Gorman said that shortly after Mr Sofronoff was appointed, he issued practice directions on how the media should deal with the BOI.

He said his team would allege that much, if not all, of the communication Mr Sofronoff had with Ms Albrechtsen was not in accordance with his own practice directions.

The court ultimately heard that Mr Drumgold’s team had to amend the particulars in his claims before Acting Justice Stephen Kaye ruled on whether or not the documents in question could become part of the case.

The acting justice did tell the lawyers: “This is not an inquiry into the inquiry”.

“This is strictly a judicial review,” he said.

The BOI’s report was leaked to The Australian and the ABC in early August 2023, several days before it was formally released.

Mr Drumgold has claimed the BOI failed to accord him “natural justice”, that some of the report’s findings were “legally unreasonable”, and that some fell outside the inquiry’s terms of reference.

He resigned as DPP after findings in the BOI report made his position untenable.

The findings included that he directed “a junior lawyer in his office to make a misleading affidavit”, “preyed on the junior lawyer’s inexperience”, “egregiously abused his authority and betrayed the trust of his young staff member”, “deliberately advanced a false claim of legal professional privilege” and “knowingly lied to the chief justice”.

Late last year, the court heard that five police officers had accused Mr Drumgold of defamation.

The formal hearing will take place over three days starting 13 February.

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty during his prosecution and no findings have been made against him.